Is the world becoming uninsurable? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#251

Post by jpalawaga » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:35 AM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #193

iandanforth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product . You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.

Price gouging isn't actually what we're seeing in the most disaster prone areas. Insurance companies aren't charging open ended prices, they're simply exiting the market. Florida for example.

They're exiting the market because the states have limits on how premiums can increase y/y. The risk modeling (which is turning out to be right) says premiums are fractional of what they should be. So unable to raise premiums, the companies just leave.

Rock, meet hard place.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#252

Post by mjevans » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:36 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #107

Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher. It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly. The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement. I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his…

More than just buildings.

ZONING and Building Code need to change.

You're correct that buildings must be more robust and literally capable of surviving an ongoing 4th of July event directly above the property.

However they must also be built such that there is less which is able to burn. Also so that that which does burn is less deadly when it burns.

There also need to be better firebreaks and less natural 'fuel load', which when there IS a good set of rain in the near future, needs to be burned in a rotating cycle to restore nature's fuel balance and discourage catastrophic uncontrolled correction events.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#253

Post by Panzer04 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #188

chii wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unregulated insurance market; price gouging. with sufficient competition, it is impossible to price gouge. So if there is supposed price gouging, then there must be insufficient competition. Therefore, the source of the lack of competition would need to be removed (ostensibly, by gov't - such as increasing business loans so that new insurance companies can be started).

Or, you need to be pragmatic, realize that you're not gods and won't create a perfect system that can't be exploited, and instead tackle the issue from multiple angles while revising your approach as the exploiters attack. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough.

What are you trying to say here?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#254

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

distortionfield wrote: post #233

novok wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health insurance's issue is probably how it induces pure waste everywhere as everyone has to play this dance of ever escalating paperwork which consumes a lot of labor. It's not profit, it's waste. Same with the ever increasing amount of admin. Why is that admin increasing? I estimate insurance or requirements created by insurance is part of the cause. There is also a lot of other smells of a lack of a competitive ma…

This is spot on. It’s not that I think health insurance companies are making insane profit margins. It’s that their very existence in the system is a pure negative and in fact a moral blight. Inflicting profit into a system that is entirely dedicated to human health is by definition a conflict of interest for basically everyone involved, even if it operated at a hypothetical 100% efficiency.

Lots of things necessary for life are run by for-profit businesses — for example, food production. Do farmers have a “conflict of interest”? What about healthcare in particular makes profit immoral?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#255

Post by ezequiel-garzon » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #217

What are we betting that the Americans rebuild in wood again? It seems like they never learn. We had a single city fire like this 500 years ago and since then we haven’t… because we built the city back in brick instead of wood.

Where 500 years ago?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#256

Post by athrowaway3z » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

typewithrhythm wrote: post #167

urhmbutwait wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s insurance? Change the euphemism from government to private insurance to satisfy capitalism gods and keep their giant foot from squishing us… still “on the books” as a co-mingled pool of funds to shift around to solve problems. Aw …sad… other people exist and need resources too. Not just about your first world skin suit playing temp host to a run of the mill electromagnetic field effect.

People choose where they live, and should bear the cost relative to the amount of risk they chose to take. Government funding is not a magical blanket that somehow makes it moral to take from someone who made good decisions and give to another who made poor ones.

The dutch aren't insured against a dike breaking (Which has its own history).

But the dikes have been collectively maintained through laws and regulation from a local semi-democratic system for 800 years (separate from government). It was a necessity as 1 delinquent could screw up everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands)

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#257

Post by Daishiman » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #156

Sabinus wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology can't save you from famines when there isn't enough sunlight to grow crops for a season or two. One good supervolcano and civilization might collapse or at least take such a hit as to be utterly transformed. Billions dead, etc.

Literally grow lights and nuclear reactors? (Or plain old gas turbine generators) Technology is the only thing that can save anyone from that type of situation. Prayer sure wouldn’t help!

You don't have the _slightest_ idea of how much energy and materials you would need to provide sufficient grow lights to feed humanity right?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#258

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:40 AM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #133

Sabinus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the market is allowed to price insurance correctly then we can motivate building designs to be more disaster resist. If the McMansion can't get insurance but disaster resistant, modest homes do, then people will adapt.

"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product . You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.

Can you define “price gouging”?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#259

Post by Panzer04 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:40 AM UTC

_tariky wrote: post #230

Animats wrote: post #107

Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher. It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly. The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement. I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his…

In Yugoslavia, in 1969, one of the biggest earthquakes occurred, destroying several cities. After that, the country’s leaders decided to change building codes. Even today, although Yugoslavia no longer exists, the countries that adopted those codes have homes capable of withstanding earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. My main point is that if we face major natural disasters, we need to take action to mitigate…

Why bother building a better home when it's cheaper to buy insurance and rebuild later?

This is why prices are important - sometimes it's sensible to build cheaper houses without these safeties if the risk isn't there, but if the risk does exist then it needs to be priced right to provide that incentive.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#260

Post by Theodores » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 6:41 AM UTC

_tariky wrote: post #230

Animats wrote: post #107

Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher. It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly. The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement. I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his…

In Yugoslavia, in 1969, one of the biggest earthquakes occurred, destroying several cities. After that, the country’s leaders decided to change building codes. Even today, although Yugoslavia no longer exists, the countries that adopted those codes have homes capable of withstanding earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. My main point is that if we face major natural disasters, we need to take action to mitigate…

In 1666 London had a bit of a problem with fire, after that some building codes were introduced. Buildings made entirely from wood were not allowed and roofs had to have a parapet.

If you don't know what a parapet is, take a look up to the roofs on London's older buildings, the front wall rises up past the bottom of the roof. If there is a fire in the building then the parapet keeps the burning roof inside the footprint of the building rather than let it 'slide off' to set fire to the property on the other side of the street.

The parapet requirement did not extend to towns outside London, which makes me wonder why.

The answer to that is to see what goes on in the USA. After a natural disaster they just pick themselves up and keep going. Florida was obliterated in 2024 but nobody cared after a fortnight. Same with the current wild fires, nobody will care next week, it will be forgotten, even though having one's home destroyed might be considered deeply traumatic.

I think that the key to change is to not have too many natural disasters, ideally nobody has living memory of the last fire/flood/earthquake/pandemic/alien invasion/plague of locusts so that there is no point of reference or 'compassion fatigue'. Only then can there be a fair expectation of political will and the possibility of change.